ArticleBMC health services research2024
Cost minimisation analyses of birth care in low-risk women in Norway: a comparison between planned home birth and birth in a standard obstetric unit.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Capacity Planning (Capital, Staff and Costs) of Inpatient Maternity Services: Pitfalls for the Unwary.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence exists that planned home births for low-risk women in settings in which they have access to hospital transfer if needed are safe. The costs of planned home births, compared to low-risk births in obstetric units, are not clear. The aim of this study was to compare costs associated with hospital births versus home births under different home birth organizations.
methodsWe performed a cost minimisation analysis (CMA) based on decision-analytic modelling while assuming that health outcomes were not affected by place of birth. Estimations of resource use were mainly based on three existing Norwegian datasets: (1) women with planned home births (n = 354), (2) women with planned home births (n = 482) of which 63 were transferred to a hospital, and (3) women with planned births in a hospital (n = 1550).
resultsPlanned home birth costs 45.9% (credibility interval [CrI] 39.1-54.2) of a low-risk birth at a hospital. For planned home birth, the birth was the costliest activity (32.1%). The costs for planned home birth were estimated to be €1872 (CrI 1694-2071) and included hospitalisations for some. Costs for only those with actual home birth was €1353 (CrI 1244-1469). Costs of a birth, including possible birth-related complications, in low-risk women in a hospital was €4077 (CrI 3575-4615). When including the costs of being on call for one woman at a time, a planned home birth costs €5,531 (CrI 5,171-5,906), which is 135.7% (CrI 117.7-156.8) of low-risk births at a hospital. When organizing midwives in the on call teams for multiple women at a time, a planned home birth costs € 2,842 (CrI 2,647-3,053), which is 69.7% (CrI 60.3-80.9) of a low-risk birth in a hospital.
conclusionsHome birth can be cost-effective if the midwives who facilitate home births are organised into larger groups, or they work for hospitals that also facilitate home births. A model in which midwives work separately or in pairs to assist with a home birth and are on call for one birth at a time may not be cost-effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.